Decision 1978S – State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
SF-CE-230-S
Decision Date: September 26, 2008
Decision Type: PERB Decision
Description: The charge alleged the State violated the Dills Act by unilaterally changing employee benefits when the State approved and implemented SB 1105.
Disposition: The Board dismissed the charge finding the State did not have an obligation to bargain.
Perc Vol: 32
Perc Index: 148
Decision Headnotes
100.03000 – Purpose of the Act
The Dills Act is a limited delegation of authority by the Legislature to the Governor, allowing DPA, as the State employer's representative, the authority to bargain with the State's unions to determine terms and conditions of employment. The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer.
103.03000 – State Issues
The Dills Act is a limited delegation of authority by the Legislature to the Governor, allowing DPA, as the State employer's representative, the authority to bargain with the State's unions to determine terms and conditions of employment. The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer. The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. The Governor's role in considering and signing legislation, as prescribed in the California Constitution, does not amount to a unilateral change in policy by the State.
104.03000 – Conclusiveness of Prior Determination by Federal Agencies, Other State Agencies or Courts
Court of Appeal decisions are binding precedent on administrative agencies. The court's legal and factual determinations as to the alternate retirement program are binding to the extent they impact the Board's analysis of the program under the Dills Act.
601.01000 – In General, Per Se and Totality of Conduct; Prima Facie Case
The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer.
601.02000 – Persons Required to Bargain; Alter Egos, Joint Employers (See also 201)
The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees.
602.01000 – In General
The Dills Act does not preclude the Legislature from enacting terms and conditions of employment which, if implemented by DPA without legislative direction, would have been an unfair practice if not negotiated. DPA's implementation of the alternate retirement program amounted to the State's compliance with law as prescribed by the legislative process and not unilateral implementation of a change in policy on the part of the State as employer. The State did not commit an unlawful unilateral change in policy by virtue of the Governor's signing SB 1105 into law, because in signing the legislation the Governor was carrying out a function directed by the California Constitution. When the Governor is acting as a participant in the legislative process and is fulfilling his/her constitutional responsibilities, those acts are to be viewed separate and apart from his/her responsibilities as chief executive and employer of State employees. The Governor's role in considering and signing legislation, as prescribed in the California Constitution, does not amount to a unilateral change in policy by the State.
1101.01000 – In General
Knowledge of pending legislation is not sufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive notice of the clear intent to implement a change in policy. Rather, filing the charge within six months of the enactment of new legislation was timely.
1101.03000 – Computation of Six-Month Period
Knowledge of pending legislation is not sufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive notice of the clear intent to implement a change in policy. Rather, filing the charge within six months of the enactment of new legislation was timely.